| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
drc, >> slow long pain versus one major sharp pain. > Or boiling the frog... frogs may be neurologically primitive, but they're not *that* primitive. >> but the slow long approach would seem to encourage sick half- >> solutions, such as (even more) massive nat deployment etc. > > To be honest, I'm having some difficulty imagining realistic > scenarios of future Internet growth that do not require (even > more) massive deployment of NAT. If for no other reason than > IPv6-only sites (since folks won't be able to get IPv4 addresses) > communicating with IPv4 sites (i.e., the vast majority of the > Internet). > > I'm not sure I see how a major sharp pain would reduce the need > for (even more) massive deployment of NAT. At least with slow > long pain, there is more of a chance that folks will finish > deploying the parallel IPv6 Internet so massive NATing isn't as > necessary... i can accept that. in fact, i can even see a universe where there is v4/v4 address translation between major isps and forget v6; sean doran may be first to publicly propose this some years back. but my point was that this trade-off space has far less destructive consequences than the proposal of a reserve. randy
